The Weekly Shtikle - Matos

 In the beginning of Perek 32, the tribes of Gad and Reuven come to Moshe and inform him that the land they had just captured from Sichon and Og is very good grazing land and that they have a lot of cattle. They then proceed to suggest that they inherit that land rather than inheriting land in Eretz Canaan. R' Chayim Kunyevsky points out something very intriguing which I'm sure very few would realize. Right before B'nei Gad and B'nei Reuven request the land but after they inform Moshe of its value, there is a "samech," denoting a minor pause. Why would there be a pause in the middle of their conversation? They were talking the whole time, the conversation never shifted.

 

 R' Chayim suggests as follows. The Yerushalmi in the first perek of Bikkurim says that one does bring bikkurim from the land of Gad and Reuven but they do not recite the viduy because it contains the phrase "ha'aretz asher nasata li", the land which You have given me, precluding a land which you took on your own as in the lands of Gad and Reuven. The half tribe of Menasheh on the other hand, even though they also reside on the other side of the Yarden, do say the viduy since they were not with Gad and Reuven in their request but the land was given to them without asking. R' Chayim suggests that Gad and Reuven were aware of this "future" halachah and therefore, they first informed Moshe of the value of the land and how it would be good for them and then they paused, hoping that Moshe would take the hint and offer the land to them so that they may recite the viduy when they bring bikkurim. After they realized that Moshe was not offering it, they had to ask for themselves.

--
Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Pinechas

As we approach Shiv'ah Asar B'Tammuz, we commemorate the yahrtzeits of two of the Roshei HaYeshivah of Ner Yisroel - R' Yaakov Yitzchak (ben Yehudah Leib) Ruderman whose yahrtzeit was yesterday and R' Shmuel Yaakov (ben Yitzchok Mattisyahu) Weinberg whose yahrtzeit is this Sunday.

 

As well, today is the Yahrtzeit of my wife's grandmother, Chaya Shaindel bas Alexander, after whom our daughter, now one year old, is named. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas all of the above.

 

    We began sefer Bamidbar pointing out the recurring theme of leadership found throughout the sefer. Parshas Pinechas offers a number of insights into this theme. Moshe Rabbeinu's request for a successor touches on the need for appointed leadership. But in the beginning of the parsha, HaShem gives His stamp of approval to Pinechas' heroic act in putting an abrupt end to the plague that was devastating B'nei Yisroel. Here we find the importance of "civilian" leadership, a regular member of the community who stands up and stands out from the crowd - to "be a man where there are no men" - and become a hero.

 

    But while positive leadership plays a big role in the parsha, there is a fair share of negative leadership as well. First, the war against Midyan involved the specific targeting and elimination of Bil'am. Although his involvement with the Midyanites might not have been very obvious. But he was clearly identified as the man behind the evil plan and was thus singled out for "removal."

 

    There is yet another less obvious portion relating to negative leadership. As part of the census, when discussing the sons of Eliav (26:9), the Torah recounts the fate of Dasan and Aviram who rose up against Moshe and Aharon as part of Korach's campaign and were subsequently swallowed up by the earth while the sons of Korach did not perish. The Ohr HaChayim HaKadosh, whose yahrtzeit, ironically, is today as well, is bothered by this passage. It does not seem to belong at all in a discussion involving the census, much less in the portion discussing the tribe of Reuvein. He suggests that this recounting of the Korach episode is meant to reveal the true masterminds behind the scheme as Dasan and Aviram, not Korach. Korach was a political pawn, a front man for Dasan and Aviram. Indeed, we find that when Moshe Rabbeinu attempts to make piece with the group, he sends messengers specifically to Dasan and Aviram, no Korach. He even goes so far as to suggest that the statement about Korach's children surviving is meant as a statement of Korach's merit.

 

    It is certainly of utmost importance to always have leaders whom we respect and revere. At the same time, however, it is often important to be able to identify the true sources of evil, the leaders and masterminds who lie at the root of the problems we face as a nation.

 

Have a good Shabbos.
 
Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com

http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Balak

    When the elders of Moav and Midyan came to bring Bil'am, the pasuk (22:7) says they brought "kesamim" with them. Rashi writes that the Midyanites went in with a plan as to how to determine Bil'am's legitimacy. They said, "If he comes with us this time, he is legitimate. If he tells us to delay, there is no purpose." Once he said "sleep here tonight," they saw that he had no hope and they left him. The GR"A points out the inconsistency in the terminology used by Rashi. It is observed in the Hebrew as Rashi changes terms from "Yeish bo MAMASH" to "Ein bo TO'ELES" to "Ein bo TIKVAH."

 

    The GR"A explains that Bil'am professed to be on a higher level of prophecy than Moshe. Although Moshe was above all other prophets in that he may speak to HaShem whenever he wished, Bil'am claimed to be even greater, in that he was "yodea da'as Elyon," that he didn't even have to speak to HaShem but that he already knew what He was "thinking," as it were. Therefore, the Midyanites reasoned, if he goes with us right away, it is indeed true that he is better than Moshe - yeish bo mamash - there is legitimacy to his claim. If he tells us to wait then that means he has to confer with HaShem. Although he might still be a great prophet, he is no better than Moshe so why should they side with Bil'am any more than Moshe. Therefore, there is no "purpose" (to'eles). When they saw that he required them to stay the night, they realized that he could only communicate with HaShem at night, which put him below Moshe on the prophecy scale. Then they saw that he had no hope (tikvah) and they were wasting their time so they left him.

 

Have a good Shabbos.
 
Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Chukas

    The beginning of Parshas Chukas deals with the mitzvah of the Parah Adumah, (which will not be referred to as the Red Cow or Heifer because it probably was not really red, but that's for another time.) Parah Adumah is well-known as the textbook "chok," mitzvah without reasoning. The Sefer HaChinuch writes that he will not give a reasoning for the mitzvah of Parah Adumah as he does for most of the other mitzvos for even Shlomo HaMelech could not find the reasoning for it. R' Yaakov Kaminetzky writes, in Emes L'Yaakov, that to give a reasoning for the miztvah would be against the very reasoning for the mitzvah itself. That is to say, that the point of Parah Adumah is that there is no reasoning.

    Rashi at the end of perek 19 parables the mitzvah of Parah Adumah, an atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf, to the child of a maidservant who had "soiled" himself in the palace of the king, that it is incumbent upon the mother of the child to come and clean up the mess. The Ramban and Kuzari write that the sin of the Golden Calf was not pure Avodah Zarah. B'nei Yisroel feared that Moshe had died and were afraid of losing their connection with HaShem and built the Golden Calf so that the Shechinah would rest on it. Nevertheless, it was Avodah Zarah. This was a sin of the intuition. They did not turn away from HaShem, per se, but rather, they devised new, foreign methods to receive His Presence. Afikei Yehudah writes that the meaning of Rashi's parable is that the "palace of the king" refers to the mind. By committing this sin of the intuition, B'nei Yisroel soiled the mind. The way to repent for this sin was to be given a mitzvah that cleans out the mind by keeping it out of the picture. A mitzvah which the mind cannot begin to understand is the perfect atonement for a sin for which the mind was responsible. (See also Rambam at the end of Hilchos Me'ila on the importance of refraining from trying to understand the mitzvos in one's mind.) 

Have a good Shabbos.
 
Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Korach

    There are some obvious connections between the parsha and the haftarah we read from (beginning at Shmuel I 11:14). As indicated in Divrei HaYamim, Shmuel was a direct descendant of Korach. Rashi at the beginning of the parsha points out that it was a vision that Korach had, that he would have offspring equal in stature to Moshe and Aharon, that drove him to his rebellion. Additionally, we find Shmuel delivering an address to the people in which he must make the following defensive assertion (12:3) " Whose ox have I taken? Whose donkey have I taken? Whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed?" This very closely parallels part of Moshe's prayer to HaShem in the midst of the Korach crisis (15:15) "I have not taken one donkey from them, neither have I hurt one of them."

 

    I believe there is something deeper in these correlations, an actual connection between them. Perhaps it may be suggested that the trials and tribulations that Shmuel endured during his reign as leader of the Jewish Nation were in some way a retribution or atonement for the similar treatment which his ancestor Korach put Moshe Rabbeinu through. A few points to ponder along this line of thought: As explained in "Ma SheHayah hu Sheyihyeh" on haftaros, Korach's claim was that the entire nation were on an equal level of holiness and thus, did not require a supreme leader. To counter this, as we read in our haftarah, Shmuel is tasked with anointing the very first king in our history.

    

    Another component of Korach's campaign was the opposition to the appointing of Aharon as the Kohein Gadol, although it is not clear that he necessarily opposed the concept of a Kohein Gadol itself. It is therefore fitting that Shmuel was raised under the tutelage of Eli, the Kohein Gadol and judge at the time.

 

    Although Korach's misguided revolution had quite a significant following, we are told later on (26:11) that his own children saw the errors of his ways and repented and were thus saved from meeting the same demise as their father. It is therefore quite interesting to note Shmuel HaNavi having the very opposite experience. Despite Shmuel's righteousness, we are told (Shmuel I 8:3) that his sons did not follow in his ways and when they were appointed to high judiciary positions were involved in bribery and perversion of justice. It was this unfortunate reality that led to the nation's request to abolish the system of judges as national leaders and to institute the monarchy as Shmuel did in our haftarah.

 

Have a good Shabbos.
 
Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Shelach

This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas R' Ephraim Eisenberg, zt"l, Ephraim Zalman ben Chayim HaLevi, whose Yahrtzeit was yesterday.

    Clearly, the most significant part of this week's parsha is the episode of the spies who were sent to Eretz Yisroel. As a result of their negative report, B'nei Yisroel were forced to postpone their entry into Eretz Yisroel for almost thirty nine years. Although the report of the ten spies was, on the whole, a negative one, the pesukim seem to show an apparent progression of the gravity of the spies' arguments.

    When the spies die a horrible death for their sins, the pasuk (14:37) reads, "vayamusu ha'anashim motzi'ei dibas ha'aretz ra'ah.." The men who had slandered the land died. The ten spies are labeled as "motzi'ei dibas ha'aretz ra'ah," slanderers of the land, and it would certainly seem, in context, that this is given as the very reason why they were punished this way.

    When the spies come back and deliver their report, they ague that despite the beauty and plenty of the land, they do not believe that they will be able to capture it. This point is disputed by Caleiv after which the spies go on further with their assessment of the land. It is right then, (13:32) that the Torah uses this catch phrase, or a conjugation thereof, "vayotziu dibas ha'aretz..." The Torah seems to bookmark this pasuk as the beginning of the slander. The spies go on to wantonly refer to the land as a "land that devours its inhabitants." This very specific structure seems to imply that until this point, the spies were engaged in a legitimate argument. They were welcome to present the facts of their mission and offer their analysis. Had they not gone any further, they would not have been deserving of their terrible plague. They crossed the line when they began to distort the truth, when they offered their own misguided assessments as fact. It was this specific deceitful tactic that transformed them from spies to slanderers.

Have a good Shabbos.
 
Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Beha'alosecha

    In this week's parsha we have the famous two pesukim (10:35-36) regarding the traveling and resting of the Aron. The two pesukim are encapsulated by the irregular upside down nuns, thus dividing sefer Bamidbar into two parts. The exact placement of this separation is quite significant. The divided parts of Bamidbar are rather opposite eras in B'nei Yisroel's sojourn in the midbar. Until this point, everything is proceeding beautifully. B'nei Yisroel are camped as a united nation at Har Sinai. They complete the building of the Mishkan and its consecration. Everything seems to be going fine. And then everything seems to go wrong. The rest of Bamidbar seems to be a drastic sequence of struggles that B'nei Yisroel face. Moshe seems constantly challenged with complaints. B'nei Yisroel are faced with the challenging episodes of the spies, Korach and Midyan. These two pesukim are the border between these two eras.

    The first challenge is that of the mis'onenim, the complainers. The Torah does not tell us what they were complaining about but the ensuing consequences are quite clear. The site of this disaster is named Tav'eirah, after the great consuming fire. R' Chayim Kunyevsky notes that in parshas Mas'ei, when all the checkpoints that B'nei Yisroel passed through are enumerated, there is no mention of Tav'eirah.

    Ramban (11:3) posits that B'nei Yisroel did not move from there before the next challenge after which that very same place was renamed Kivros HaTa'avah which is mentioned as the first stop after Har Sinai (33:16). However, R' Chayim dismisses this suggestion based on the pasuk in parshas Eikev (Devarim 9:22) which seems to clearly refer to Tav'eirah and Kivros HaTa'avah as separate places. R' Chayim quotes from his son that the list of checkpoints in parshas Mas'ei is only a list of locations where B'nei Yisroel camped and rested. While the Torah does not tell us directly what the mis'onenim complained about, Rashi does offer some insight into the matter. He writes (11:1) that B'nei Yisroel were complaining about the discomfort of having traveled three consecutive days without resting. It therefore seems that this place was not a place where they rested at all. They were certainly traveling until the tragedy occurred and seemingly picked up and continued immediately afterward as well. Therefore, it is not listed in parshas Mas'ei.

Have a good Shabbos

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
3410 Olympia Ave.
Baltimore, MD 21215
410-764-9115